Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a huge interest in these matters. All Members of the House will want to welcome former President Mandela to London and to welcome his wife, Gracha Machel, who is joining him. I gather that he is speaking in Trafalgar square in only a few minutes' time, which perhaps explains why so few Conservatives are here today. I had the privilege of meeting him yesterday, and he urged us to move forward with our proposals on debt relief and on the international finance facility. He speaks not just for the developing world and the emerging markets countries, but for a very large proportion of industrialised countries, which want a solution once and for all to the tragedy of promised debt relief not being given to the poorest countries.

Oliver Letwin: Given that China's productivity growth is running at about three times the rate of the G8 countries, I am sure that the Chancellor will agree that productivity needs to be a priority for the G8. But how can he hope to put that vital topic on the G8 agenda when his taxes and regulations have caused a drop of a third in Britain's productivity growth rate?

Gordon Brown: I just mentioned the shadow Minister for   deregulation who has congratulated us on our record on the economy—[Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] This is the answer to the question. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) mentioned the problems that he thought we were creating. Businesses are reluctant—[Interruption.] This is what the shadow Minister for deregulation said:
	"The single most important consideration is the cost impact of Government. Businesses are reluctant to locate in places where . . . tax rates are high . . . Places like . . . the UK . . . attract because their tax rates for business are low."
	That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Gordon Brown: I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he should look at the facts. Year on year, there has been productivity growth in the British economy. Year on year, there has been manufacturing productivity growth. That did not happen under the previous Government when productivity suffered negative growth. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know about the comparison with other countries, we have closed the productivity gap with Japan, we have closed the productivity gap with Germany, we are closing the productivity gap with France and we are making inroads in the productivity gap with the United States. The reason that we are doing so is that we have achieved a level of economic stability in this country that his party could only dream of.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing the Sure Start programme in her constituency. She is absolutely right to suggest that there must be help with early learning and health services for the young child and the mother. One of the advantages of the Sure Start programme is that we get invited, sometimes as Ministers, to open those Sure Start centres. To see a Sure Start centre working, with all the parents and children directly involved in its running, is something that makes me proud of our Government's achievements.

Paul Boateng: The hon. Gentleman well knows that our borrowing is sustainable. We have an excellent forecast record. For him to suggest for one moment that the Government need to learn anything from him or his party about borrowing is to live in cloud-cuckoo land. The fact of the matter is that today's borrowing at 35 per cent. is way below that in 1996–97, when it was 44 per cent. of gross domestic product. He should remember that in every year since 1997 and in every year of the forecast period, tax has been seen to be below that projected in the last Budget for which the Conservative party was responsible. Our party has delivered stability and continuing growth, but his party is one of borrowing, boom and bust.

John Healey: This year, Government revenues from North sea oil and gas are expected to increase by about £1   billion over Budget forecasts, largely because of increased oil and gas prices. However, the overall impact on public finances is likely to be more limited because of other direct and indirect effects of the higher prices.

Andrew Tyrie: If Labour wins the next election, everybody knows it would put our taxes up. It has an £11 billion black hole to fill. The Chief Secretary has just confirmed to us that the IFS is well worth listening to, and it says the figure is £11 billion. Everybody knows that Labour would try and do it without people noticing. A windfall tax on oil and gas would fit Labour's bill. We have had questions this afternoon on that tax, and a refusal, point blank, to rule it out. We have had—[Interruption.]

Gordon Brown: I thought that all parties wanted to see debt relief and progress in Africa. I hope that the Opposition Benches will join us in wanting a solution to the debt problem and in taking measures that will unleash the potential of Africa. Over the past 10 years many African countries have achieved greater economic stability than in the past, but they have not got growth rates similar to Asian economies. That is why it is important that once and for all we deal with the debt issue, support the private investment and trading opportunities that exist in many of those countries, and help countries that are asking us for help on transparency and macro-economic policy. That is why it is also important in December to have a solution to the trade round.
	From my visit to Africa I came away with the thoughts that, yes, there is massive and terrible poverty blighting the lives of millions, people suffering from HIV/AIDS in particular, but, yes, there is also potential. To harness it, however, requires a new partnership between the richest and poorest countries.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a big interest in these issues. Eighty per cent of the debt that is now owed is owed to multi-lateral institutions. If they consistently require that interest payments be made over the next few years, most countries will be spending more on interest payments than on education or health. The agreements that we are making with individual countries, meaning that the money that would be paid in interest rates goes to education and health, are an important first step in helping economic as well as social renewal. There are also debts, interestingly enough, owed to Libya, Romania and eastern European countries. We must also find a solution to what is called the non-Paris Club debt.
	I believe that there is sufficient goodwill in the international community and I hope that over the next few months we all will urge all countries to reach a settlement of this issue, which is outstanding from the 1980s. That will make it possible for some of the countries that I visited and other countries to spend resources that they need to spend on tackling terrible and difficult problems of illiteracy, disease and suffering.

Paul Boateng: The right hon. Gentleman well knows, and I believe that the Treasury Committee accepts, that our overall record on forecasting is good. As he knows from being in Government, corporation tax growth is only one element of receipts forecasts. Receipts from income tax, national insurance and VAT—the three largest taxes—have come in broadly as expected in Budget 2004. There is no reason to believe that our forecasts for corporation tax will not be realised. Indeed, they are on track to being realised, as the December figures show.

Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and, I must say, for very short advance sight of it.
	I am puzzled by the reasons for this statement. The publication of the first such White Paper on 20 April last year was merely announced in passing by the Prime Minister in a wider statement explaining his somersault on the referendum. No detailed explanation was given to Parliament. Why is this statement needed today, particularly as the Foreign Secretary had nothing new to say? Is not the reason that the Government are involved in a taxpayer-subsidised propaganda exercise to try to sell the new EU to the country in advance of the forthcoming referendum and general election?
	The Foreign Secretary refers somewhat disingenuously in his introduction to the White Paper to stimulating
	"closer and deeper involvement of . . . the general public, in EU affairs".
	Can he explain how, in the course of that stimulation, the general public are to become more closely and deeply involved in European affairs? This document, replete—extraordinarily—with five and a half pages of a glossary of Euro-speak, is in truth designed to lull the British people into a false sense of security.
	Let me give one example. At page 5, the White Paper claims that the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe
	"will make Europe . . . easier to understand".
	Yet the Government last week had to publish a commentary of 500 pages to try to explain this easy and simple constitution to the British people. Who are they trying to kid?
	One or two matters of detail arise out of this White Paper. Is there really a need for a "new European Gender Institute", referred to on page 14, in paragraph 37? What on earth is wrong with our Equal Opportunities Commission? Is this not yet another example of unnecessary European interference and empire building? Will not this new institute duplicate work to be carried out by yet another new European institution, the human rights agency, to which paragraph 63 refers?
	While we are on that agency, why did the Commission, in its recent consultation paper, refer to it not as the human rights agency but as "the Fundamental Rights Agency"? What is the difference? Are the Government merely trying to hide the implications of the inclusion of the charter of fundamental rights, which they have tried so hard over the last few months to play down? Does not paragraph 51 confirm a further encroachment of the EU into areas of fundamental national jurisdiction, namely matters of criminal justice? Does not that fly in the face of previous Government promises that such matters would remain outside Community competence?
	At paragraph 56, does not the support of qualified majority voting in matters of immigration and asylum fly in the face of the Prime Minister's boast in 1997 to the House, in relation to QMV, that
	"we secured unanimity in all the areas where we wanted it, such as immigration".—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 319.]
	Given that the Government have opted into every directive on asylum, is not the assertion in that same paragraph that the
	"UK . . . retains the right not to participate in EU asylum . . . provisions"
	meaningless?  
	At paragraph 81, the Foreign Secretary refers to the work that he was doing in Iran. Why is his view of Iran so different from that expressed by the President of the United States in his state of the union address last night? Has he taken into account, for instance, the reports in today's newspapers that Ukraine has in the past sold long-range missiles to Iran? While we are on the subject of Ukraine, why is the Foreign Secretary so lukewarm about Ukraine's attempts to open negotiations to become part of the European Union?
	Paragraph 85 deals with EU-China. Precisely what improvements in China's human rights record since Tiananmen square justify the Government's current support for the lifting of the arms embargo?
	Page 11 makes much of the Lisbon agenda. We have long warned that that agenda could easily become all about failed targets and today we see with regret how right we were. Halfway through the 10-year programme, little has been achieved and, as the White Paper itself acknowledges, the prosperity and productivity gap in relation to the United States is widening. In the White Paper, the Government describe that as "falling short of expectations". In the "EUobserver" on 2 February, Wim Kok described the goal of the agenda as "a bridge too far". But was not Romano Prodi nearer the truth last October when he described it quite simply as "a big failure"? Yet the White Paper merely promises more of the same.
	Is it not the case that the real engine of prosperity and growth is deregulation, competition and a genuinely free market? Is it not also the case that the social model acts as a break on that engine, and is that not why the EU is failing economically? Yet the White Paper offers a lot more talk and no action.
	The Foreign Secretary knows well that the prospects for the EU in the coming year will remain uncertain until the outcome of the EU-wide process of ratification of the constitution is known. Yet now we hear that the Government intend to put off the referendum in this country until the latest possible date next year. Prolonging the uncertainty can only be bad for the EU. Why do the Government not have the courage of their convictions and hold the referendum now? Why do they not realise that this country will have no part in the constitution, and begin to build an EU that will work for its peoples rather than its elites?
	After May, when we are on the other side of the House, we will waste no time in clearing up this uncertainty.

Jack Straw: The self-deprecating smile on the face of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as he mouthed his last point said it all. It was clear that not even he believes such nonsense. One reason why he does not believe it is that, as someone who throughout his political career—until he became deputy leader of the Conservative party—was an ardent supporter of Britain in Europe who not only voted for Maastricht but spoke up for it, he knows very well that Europe above all other issues has wrecked the Tory party and removed its prospects of power for well over a decade.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why the statement was needed. I refer him to a statement I made early last year, when I told the House that in my judgment the British Government ought to be more accountable to the House for what they do in regard to European Union business. I made a series of proposals, one of which was regular publication of these White Papers and an oral statement to accompany those published annually. That is why I am here now, and I find it astonishing that he is running so scared of the facts about our record in Europe that he does not want the issue to be discussed.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the new gender institute. Of all the issues that he could have highlighted, he fixed on that one. I will tell him why the institute is needed. Even the Conservatives' policy for the European Union accepts the free movement of workers and of people. That means that in increasing numbers—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about this, so I am trying to explain. In increasing numbers, British workers will be working abroad. If they happen to be women, they ought to be entitled to the same protection that they can enjoy here. I should have thought that that was commendable, not a matter for regret.
	The same applies to the human rights agency. No, it will not duplicate the work of our own agencies. Indeed, we are far more advanced in terms of gender equality— as we are in terms of race and religious relations—than most, if not all, other European countries. However, it is of great value to our people abroad to be able to secure some minimal protection if they are subject to gender or racial discrimination.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about judicial co-operation and our signature to the Amsterdam treaty. The terms of that treaty were made very clear when the House debated it in 1997. I think that the Conservatives tried to make that and Nice the great election issue in 2001, and they got the answer that they deserved from the British electorate.
	I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman why we need QMV on aspects of asylum and immigration policy. Back in the early 1990s, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) signed up to a convention that became Dublin I. It had to be agreed unanimously and it was crazy to sign it, because, although it did not come into force until 1997, it was binding and prevented us from maintaining our bilateral agreement with France to return asylum seekers and illegal immigrants who had travelled through France.
	There is no point in the Leader of the Opposition weeping about that decision, which was his responsibility. I tried to get the convention changed, but it took a very long time, because one or two countries proposed vetoing that change. QMV allowed us to make the change, and we now have returns agreements, and the same is true of the Eurodac fingerprinting convention. If the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes wants better to control immigration and asylum into this country, he must understand that we need co-operation with our European partners, a level playing field and, above all, to be able to change the law in our favour, but he is setting his face against all those things.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes asked about our position on Iran. In case he has not noticed, the British Government and the British Parliament are responsible for our foreign policy—I noted the implication of his remarks. Every single decision that France, Germany and the United Kingdom have made has been endorsed unanimously by the governing body of the International Atomic Energy Agency, on which the United States and others sit.
	Finally and most absurdly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that progress on Lisbon has not been as good as it should have been—I am glad that he has read that section of the White Paper—but then said that the European Union should secure more liberalisation, greater deregulation, better competition and a genuinely free market. What on earth does he think that the Lisbon agenda is about, if not deregulation, greater competition and a genuinely free market? Some people in the European single market are behind the action, which is why we have worked hard and successfully to get a Commission that represents our vision of the future and that will actively pursue the Lisbon agenda, which did not happen under the previous Commission.

Menzies Campbell: I commend the practice of the regular publication of White Papers such as that that we are discussing today. So far as the Government recognise the imperative need for progress on the single market and the Lisbon agreement, they will undoubtedly have our support.
	I urge the Foreign Secretary not to ignore the reform of the common agricultural policy, particularly with regard to access for third world countries, and especially those in Africa.
	On China, I part company with the Foreign Secretary. How can lifting the arms embargo, which was imposed after the events in Tiananmen square, be justified given the scope of human rights abuses in China, including the detention of thousands of political prisoners, which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself has described as a matter of serious concern? The Foreign Secretary visited Washington last week, and will be aware that political opposition to lifting the embargo exists across the board, and I hope that he will reconsider the position.
	We have consistently supported the Foreign Secretary on Iran. What is the status of the current negotiations on a long-term agreement with Iran? When the Foreign Secretary meets the new Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, tomorrow, will he impress upon her the validity of the European Union's approach?
	Finally, on the constitutional treaty, I share the Foreign Secretary's keen sense of anticipation about the forthcoming debate. Does he agree that the campaign for an affirmative vote in that referendum should begin as soon as possible?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman may say that but such measures depend on regulation. The single market, which is very much to the benefit of British business, depends not only on regulations but on their enforcement across Europe. Ours is the country and economy that has most benefited from access to a free market in Europe. We have to ensure that regulation is better, and in many cases that means less regulation, but in some cases it means new regulation.

Andrew Dismore: May I raise with my right hon. Friend the two draft regulations proposed by the Commission on financial aid to the Turkish Cypriots and the direct trade regulation? Those two have been linked together, but the first is non-contentious, and it is agreed by everyone that the Turkish Cypriots should have €259 million worth of aid. The second, however, is extremely contentious, protectionist and does little to advance the interests of the Cypriots as a whole, whereas a more pre-trade approach would. Will my right hon. Friend consider de-linking the two, so that Turkish Cypriots can secure the financial aid quickly while we attempt to apply more sensible trading arrangements on the island, particularly the option of making green line regulation more effective?

Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business. He will obviously have in mind a date for a Northern Ireland elections Bill. It would be helpful if the Bill were to be published. It may be controversial, but what is the timetable for publication?
	Given the deteriorating security situation in Northern Ireland following the recent IRA statement, does the Leader of the House know whether the Secretary Of State for Defence has the intention to reconsider the cuts that he made in the number of infantry battalions based there? Are we likely to have a statement on that in the coming week? He will know that, at the time that those cuts were made, Opposition Members, and indeed many hon. Members throughout the House, pointed out that they were premature and would place more pressure on the defence budget.
	The Public Administration Committee report issued today suggests giving Parliament much more control over inquiries such as that into the former Home Secretary. Can we expect an early response? Clearly, Parliament needs to be treated with more respect than has been shown recently to our Select Committees.
	Will the Leader of the House make a statement about parliamentary conventions? Two weeks ago, the Government wanted to change the convention that constitutional Bills are debated on the Floor of the House, but ultimately relented. The Deputy Prime Minister was given the Environmental Audit Committee report entitled "Housing: Building a Sustainable Future" early, and subject to a press embargo for Sunday. On Saturday, however, he showed total brass neck by ignoring the embargo in order to attack the report. As The Guardian put it:
	"Mr. Prescott took the unusual step of reacting to the report a day before it was even due to be released."
	The Labour Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee ignored the convention that the Chairman supports the status quo when he voted to reverse that Committee's request to sit in public. The tied vote then went in favour of those who oppose open government. The Leader of the House himself told us how much he welcomed the original request. He said:
	"I very much welcome the European Scrutiny Committee's decision . . . Indeed I do. In fact, I would like to see greater scrutiny". [Official Report, 15 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 970.]
	Is it not time that the Leader of the House condemned those who wish to go back to the bad, old-fashioned secrecy that has cloaked European scrutiny here? Surely we can rely on him to support such a modest piece of modernisation?
	Finally, can we debate the Environmental Audit Committee report itself, which is also referred to in early-day motion 626?
	[That this House expresses its deep concern at the plans to impose massive house building on Hertfordshire; notes that such plans are based on the Government's Sustainable Communities Plan launched by the Deputy Prime Minister; congratulates the Environmental Audit Committee on its report Housing: Building a Sustainable Future, which attacks the Government's plans as not adequately considering the environmental impacts of the proposed increase in house building, with the environment as principal loser, as establishing the principal role of planning as being simply to meet market demand without regard to democratic accountability, as not having an adequate evidence base, as not referring to environmental protection, as making efforts towards sustainability that are little more than window dressing and as likely to result in a dramatic increase in the number of properties flooded; calls on the Government to undertake the research recommended by the Committee to amend its plans to take account of the environmental impacts and not to take forward the current misconceived proposals, which would lead to overdevelopment in Hertfordshire and other parts of the South East and East, and to traffic congestion, train overcrowding and undue pressure on all local services; and condemns the Government for pressing ahead with this plan even though the East of England Regional Assembly has withdrawn its support.]
	The report attacks the Deputy Prime Minister's massive house building plans in the south-east for ignoring the environmental impacts of such building and ignoring democratic accountability. It states that it is likely to lead to a
	"dramatic increase in the number of properties flooded".
	That is what that Labour-dominated Committee found. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that Hertfordshire, my own county, and other counties do not want to become a concrete wasteland to be known as "Prescottshire"?

Alice Mahon: Has the Leader of the House had time to look at early-day motion 579 signed by 77 Members?
	[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 3372), dated 17th December 2004, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be annulled.]
	The motion reflects deep concern about the local government pension scheme regulations. He will be aware of the huge concern among public sector workers who believe that they are being given very little time for debate. May we have an urgent debate on the matter?

Peter Robinson: Following last night's statement by the Provisional IRA, does the Leader of the House feel, as I do, that we have heard just about everything from that organisation—an organisation that has butchered our fellow citizens for 25 years, rejected the Government's comprehensive agreement and instead carried out the biggest bank robbery in British history, and now has the bare-faced effrontery to say that the Government have tried the IRA's patience to the limit? Has he seen early-day motion 463, which calls for the withdrawal of privileges from Sinn Fein-IRA in the House?
	[That this House notes with concern the statement by the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland that the IRA were responsible for the raid on the Headquarters of the Northern Bank in Belfast when in excess of £26 million was stolen; recalls the Prime Minister's assertion that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked; believes that this act of criminality proves that Sinn Fein cannot be treated like a normal democratic party; and calls upon the House to immediately withdraw all privileges from Sinn Fein honourable Members.]
	Does the Leader of the House recognise that if he takes the attitude that he expressed in response to an earlier question, many will see that the Government do not have the bottle, the political backbone and the moral courage to take on those gunmen and gangsters?

Peter Hain: I represent a constituency with many outlying former pit villages, so I absolutely understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. It would be very helpful if I could secure a private Member's debate, in which other hon. Members could express their view on the matter and the banks and other institutions responsible could be held to account. As he says, the poorest and some of the oldest citizens, who do not have cars or the ability to go to a free ATM, are most punitively hit by such behaviour. I would certainly welcome the opportunity of a private Member's debate, but I cannot promise him one in Government time.

Peter Hain: I always find that I become a little suspicious when I am accused across the Floor of possessing honesty and integrity because I wonder what is going to happen next. The hon. Gentleman knows that the issue has been long debated and I have expressed my concerns about it. The other day's decision was taken on a different, although related, matter.

Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) earlier referred to the important statement made by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on enabling people who are disabled to get into work. That was an important element of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was put forward in the House by Lord Morris, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and I, although it was kicked into touch by the then Conservative Government.
	Is my right hon. Friend aware that medical examiners necessarily have a key role on incapacity benefit and thus the new proposals? However, there are many problems with medical examinations because some people who are not entitled to benefit receive it, while others who are clearly entitled to it are refused. May we have a debate about medical examiners so that we can find out who examines the examiners and ensure that we get this key issue right?

Andrew Mitchell: Despite the fact that what he says is true, I invite my right hon. Friend to listen to my comments on all the other aspects of the programme motion and to consider, in the spirit of the good will that the Opposition are trying to engender, whether one and a half hours to debate religious hatred might be sufficient.
	The second topic of discussion is intercepts. It is dealt with in a new clause, which has attracted support from hon. Members of all parties. Although it was discussed only briefly in Committee, it is a key provision that abuts on a subject of great concern across the House—those people who are currently locked up in jail and are outside the criminal justice system. An authoritative argument has been made that the use of intercept evidence in court could enable those people to be brought back within the criminal justice system. Acres of print have been published on the subject and it has been discussed on every television channel. It relates to the question of house arrest, and to our liberties, yet under the programme motion we shall be able to discuss it for only half an hour. It will take me almost all that time to move and explain the new clause that stands in my name. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has tabled a perfectly reasonable amendment to the programme motion, were to succeed in persuading the House to accept it, the House will have absolutely no time at all—zero minutes—to discuss the important question of intercepts.

Robert Smith: The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) illustrates how chaotic the programme motion is. It is still possible to table amendments today, and the Government's programme motion does not take into account the issues that Back Benchers may want to raise. The problem with the hon. Gentleman's amendment is the priorities that the Government have set and the time that they have allocated. The business in the first one and a half hour debate is highly likely to provoke two votes, which will take almost half an hour. Accepting the hon. Gentleman's amendment means that we would have no debate on intercept evidence, which is extremely important. That is frustrating and worrying.
	The Procedure Committee presented a report that aimed to improve the way programming works, and to provide encouragement through the usual channels to produce a consensual programme that would fit most of the business in. Sadly, on the advice of the Government, the House rejected the report. As a fall-back from the Procedure Committee's proposals, the Government would have to use the guillotine process. The report was an attempt to force the Government to recognise the need to build an understanding throughout the House of what should be in the programme. Having rejected that, the Government have become addicted to managing the business for their own convenience, not for the effective scrutiny of legislation nor for effective debate.
	The programme motion does not allow enough time for adequate scrutiny of fundamental matters such as intercept evidence and the whole new area of vital legislation on animal rights extremists and the effect of their activities on people's legitimate right to carry out their business. The future of Parliament square is bound to be controversial, so all the remaining topics will receive no consideration. The Government have failed to protect the business so that Back Benchers have an effective and adequate input. Yet again the Government are passing the buck to the other place to scrutinise the legislation. I urge them to recognise the error of their ways, withdraw the programme motion, acknowledge the need for more time on Report and Third Reading, and come back with a far more thought-out proposal.

Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend asks, "What's new?"—and I do try to bring an independent mind to most things. But the fact of the matter is that the Government are ignoring Parliament, sidelining it and treating it with derision. We were all sent here to play a part in holding the Government to account and in scrutinising legislation that is put before us. It is a duty that we cannot perform if this programme motion is voted through. It will be impossible to debate adequately any of the subjects that the Bill touches upon.
	Probably a couple of hours—certainly an hour and a half—will be taken up by Divisions and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, half an hour may be spent on intercepts. If the modest amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, which I should like to support, were selected, there would be no time at all.
	There was a time when someone came into the Chamber, or its predecessor, pointed to the Mace and said, "Take away that bauble," and Parliament was suspended. The Government have introduced plenty of stealth taxes, and they are now attacking by stealth the very integrity of Parliament, with a series of motions that emasculate it. That should be a matter of supreme importance to every Member, whatever his or her views and whatever constituency he or she represents. We cannot do our job if motions such as this are passed.
	Most people in this House will accept that I try to behave as a House of Commons man: I seek consensus where it can be found. I hope that I am independent-minded on most subjects. But if the Government persist in this way, the official Opposition would be entirely justified in withdrawing all support, in leaving the Modernisation Committee and saying: "We will have no part of this and we will not do anything that can be construed in any way as conferring legitimacy on an operation that is designed to obliterate the proper function of Parliament."
	This is a sad and serious moment. It is a programme motion too far, and I hope that the Minister, who has not yet uttered a word, will take it away, and then return and give us two days. That is modest enough for a measure of such far-reaching importance, but we could then work together again in a consensual spirit, ensuring that as far as possible—we accept that the timetable is truncated because an election is looming—we discuss, at least briefly, every aspect of this far-reaching Bill.

Andrew Mitchell: One extremely good example of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough is saying is the issue that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack)—Parliament square, in which respect even now the Minister is refining the Government's proposals. She is actually doing a good job in trying to reach consensus on this difficult issue, but if she returns to the House and wants to win its support, she will not be able to do so because there will not be enough time for her to take account of opinion, listen to what is said and explain her proposals.

Edward Garnier: It gets worse. No doubt at some stage some Minister will stand up and say that the matter was fully canvassed in Committee. We all know what happens in Standing Committees nowadays. There are knives, the Government majority are compliant and silent, and Opposition Members are prohibited by the time scheduling from expanding the points of view that many members of the public wish to hear debated and considered. It is no good the Government saying that the matter was adequately discussed in Committee.
	Furthermore, we all know that Standing Committees are a limited representation of the House of Commons. Those of us who are not on the Bill Committee want an opportunity either on behalf of our constituents or a wider interest group to express our concerns or perhaps our support on issues, such as the curtailment of freedom to do with the law on religious hatred. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and I share the same view of the law on religious hatred. We think that it is a bad idea and that the public should hear the arguments from Members other than those on the Committee.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) said a moment ago, intercept evidence along with the question of religious hatred are two of the most important issues concerning civil liberties that the Bill will destroy. What are we supposed to do with half an hour to discuss the civil liberties of our citizens? Do you remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in 1998 the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, "Hallelujah, this is the Labour Government that is bringing human rights home."? The Government were going to domesticate the European convention on human rights by enacting the Human Rights Bill. What a load of codswallop. What a load of trash. They do not know what they are doing. They have no understanding of the constitutional proprieties. This is a disgraceful and despotic Government. The rulers of the Soviet Union would tip their hat to this lot. The Bill should be given proper consideration by this House, and I hope that it will reject this revolting timetabling motion.

Evan Harris: I am aware that the Minister is keen to respond even in the limited time we have to discuss the limited time that we have to discuss the Bill on Report. I have a few brief points.
	At the start it was not entirely satisfactory that the Bill was such a portmanteau business incorporating different sorts of legislation, but it is recognised that we have to do what we can in Committee. The Committee was disciplined. In my view there is no reason why a Committee cannot get through such a Bill if Members show restraint, as was shown on all sides, but on the basis that each part, which will inevitably be considered separately on Report, will be given adequate time for discussion. It is unfortunate that the programme motion does not provide for that.
	In addition, the animal extremism measure is a dramatic piece of legislation. The construction of the five Government new clauses that make up the economic sabotage measure shows that careful discussion and scrutiny is necessary. I question whether there is enough time to do that. Today, I tabled an amendment, the measure having been published only in the last two days, and it is not clear whether there is enough time for consideration. Moreover, the Government could have introduced the new clauses before the conclusion of the Committee stage for us to discuss then, rather than waiting until a few days before a Report stage debate to do so.
	Finally, there is the question of the section on religious incitement. Two new clauses, if selected, will need debate and may well lead to Divisions. New clause 3 substitutes a different approach from the Government's and it has three party support. That means that we are dealing not just with the Government and one or two Front Bench spokesmen, but with Government Back Benchers who will want their say as they have signed the new clause. It is unusual to have that sort of arrangement on Report on a Government Bill, particularly so close to an election. That should signal that there is plenty to debate.
	In addition, there is a new clause dealing with the abolition of blasphemy. That has hardly ever been debated in the House and the last time was, I think, 15 years ago. It, too, has cross-party Back-Bench support and Members will want to give their view. I understand that Conservative Members will have a free vote, so no doubt there will be more than one view held among them. Certainly there will be more than one view on the Government Benches. I do not see how it will be possible to cover that discussion in an hour and a half.
	I urge the Government, who so far have dealt with the business of the Bill in a spirit of co-operation despite the tight scheduling, to reconsider the programme motion to provide adequate time for all those matters. If the Government do not, they know that they will have difficulty in the House of Lords on the question of religious incitement. The failure to debate this properly in this House gives encouragement, rightly so, to the other place to stand firm in their previously expressed belief that this is not what they want to see. Fuller discussion in this House might persuade some of their lordships to drop their objections. The Government are making a rod for their own back by trying to rush that particular measure and this Bill through the House.

Robert Smith: The Minister is making a point about trying to deal with some of the individual concerns, but the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised his concerns on the Floor of the House for the rest of the House to be aware that there was a problem in the Bill. She is now proposing to deal with those concerns at a private meeting. Will the response from that be put in the Library or before the House so that hon. Members can see it? It is important that there is a record in Hansard for the courts to see how Ministers have justified their legislation. Hansard provides the record of which arguments they used to justify their case.

Fiona Mactaggart: I do not believe that that is necessary because the Committee that considered the Bill managed fully to debate all the issues without any guillotine or knives. The Committee went through all the business. The Government offered additional time in Committee, which was not necessary. We have fully debated the Bill in Committee.
	The programme motion focuses on appropriate matters. It is clear from today's contributions that hon. Members are confident that the motion identifies the aspects that they wish to debate on the Floor of the House. Consequently, I am confident that the focus is appropriate. As has been said, the Bill has in large measure attracted support across the House. It has been vigorously debated and there will be a full five and a half hours debate on Report. I emphasise that the time allowed will not be reduced in the event of a statement.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved, 
	In the Table, in the entry relating to the use of intercept evidence in legal proceedings, in column 2, leave out from 'Two' to 'New' in column 1 in the entry relating to protection of organisations from economic damage or other interference with their activities, and insert—
	
		
			  
			 '   hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
			 Amendments relating to the abolition of the Royal Parks Constabulary Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.'.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Regulations Made by the Treasury: Qualifying Courses

Dawn Primarolo: We crossed this ground in Committee; we shall cross it again.
	The Government consulted on a number of issues in the review on financial independence for 16 to 19-year-olds. Some were short term, and some were for long- term solution and consultation, precisely for the reason given by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). It is one thing to want to achieve an objective, but quite another to find the route that delivers it.
	The first set of consultations, which deals with the proposals in new clause 1, was specifically with regard to defining the courses that would be covered and the training for unwaged trainees. To pick up the point made by the hon. Gentleman in his closing remarks, two real issues emerged from the consultation. The first was the complete lack of proper information about the number or type of so-called unwaged trainees who were outside the Government schemes. That has real dangers, on which the hon. Gentleman touched. Unwaged training should be properly accredited; that is, it should be training with a result—a skill.

David Taylor: I am attracted by the apparent intent of both new clauses. Will my right hon. Friend address directly the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in relation to the parallels with the ILAs? That was a sad and sorry saga that I am sure we shall not repeat.

Dawn Primarolo: I assure my hon. Friend that provision has been made to stop that happening, but I also assure him that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis)—who will follow up a number of other issues that relate to 16 to 19 skills—and I intend to monitor the wider issues. This is the first step that the Government have taken in this area, but it needs to be monitored and that is a high priority. I am certainly satisfied that that is the best that we can do. Unfortunately, I cannot say that unscrupulous people will not seek ways to exploit the system, but we will do our best to combat that and to try to ensure that it does not happen, and monitoring is one way to do so.
	The proposals in new clause 1 that relate to the list are dealt with in the regulations, which can be amended and developed as we become satisfied about the proposed schemes that may be added at a later stage.
	On how to ensure that young people are properly informed, I will not be as mischievous as the hon. Member for Twickenham with regard to the Conservative party's future plans about publicity and how it would make cuts in that respect. A much more important point needs to be made about the March 2004 report, "Supporting young people to achieve". Again, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), that report commits the Government to ensuring that information about the financial support available for post-16 choices is given at the same time as general advice about post-16 choices. The Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions are working on that and will ensure that such proper advice is available.
	New clause 1 is, frankly, not necessary because it would duplicate work of the Government that is already under way. I hope that the hon. Member for Rayleigh will not press it to a Division.
	New clause 2 relates to volunteering. I wondered whether I needed to speak about it because the hon. Gentleman made my points for me by quoting my comments from the Committee. I fully support the principle that he is putting forward, as did many members of the Committee. In "Supporting young people to achieve", which was published last March, we recognised that volunteering and informal training could provide an effective means of re-engaging young people, especially those who are marginalised. Indeed, during my consultation with young people they flagged up not only the benefits of volunteering, but the problems involved in providing volunteering that is recognised as being relevant experience and part of a qualification while preventing young people from being exploited.
	It was concluded that we should take the consultation a step further. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, this will be the second stage of the consultation. We will report the results of our consultation on volunteering, and the question of whether it could be accredited through such bodies as the Prince's Trust, in the forthcoming Budget. The Government will respond to what has been said and explain how they can take things forward.
	The Government, however, have done more than just that. They have set up the Russell commission. Additionally, a conference on volunteering was held in the Treasury on 31 January, which was announced as part of the pre-Budget report, to examine specifically with the sector how volunteering and mentoring could be taken forward to provide an additional avenue of experience for young people.
	For the reasons identified by the hon. Members for Twickenham and for Rayleigh, it would be dangerous to introduce such a measure at this early stage. We would not be able to quantify it, or know whether it would work. We would not know the benefits that young people would receive, and we could inadvertently provide for their exploitation. The question of extending such financial support has thus been left to one side although, as I explained in Committee, the door has not closed. We are waiting for the Russell commission's report and want to conclude the consultation in which we are engaged. We will report back on the consultation and the next steps to be taken at the time of the Budget. The Home Secretary and the Chancellor led the conference in the Treasury on 31 January, so they are keen to take the process forward.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Rayleigh will agree that he has pushed far enough to make it clear that volunteering will be addressed. After taking account of the responses that we receive, we will try to find a way of updating things. I am happy to ensure that he and other hon. Members are kept fully informed of developments. On that basis, I hope that he will not press new clause 2 to a Division. If he does, I shall reluctantly have to oppose it—not on principle, but because such a mechanism could not be introduced practically or sensibly at this stage.

Mark Francois: I thank the Paymaster General for that detailed intervention. I shall fully respect her right to be assertive—I suspect that she probably never needed to go on an assertiveness training course, but that God gave her that talent—as long as she respects my right to continue, on occasion, to be sceptical.
	The right hon. Lady said that the Government will have more to say on the subject in the Budget—it would be helpful if she told us when that will be—and that they want to consider the conclusions of the Russell commission. It seems most sensible to wait for the Budget, so even though the right hon. Lady has been unable to provide a financial estimate—my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) will have more to say on Third Reading about the absence from the Bill of financial information—we shall not press new clause 2 to a Division.
	On new clause 1, however, we disagree. There is a lack of detail in the draft regulations. The Paymaster General intimated that the draft regulations lay out a list of all the courses; in fact, they do no such thing. Under the heading "Interpretation", regulation 2 starts "In these Regulations—" and then simply lays out headings for the multifarious courses that will be covered. It does not specify the courses themselves, only the types of course, and there is no appendix that lists specific courses. That is not the comprehensive list that we have been trying to elicit from the Government. We argue that there should be a concise list of precisely what courses are covered, which should be publicised so that people will know whether they are likely to qualify for an extended child benefit payment if they take a certain course. A list of headings does not meet that requirement.
	I shall deal with the point made from the Liberal Front Bench. I should mention as a matter of courtesy that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) let me know that he could not be present this afternoon. I am sure he also informed the Minister's office of that. It is a pleasure to have the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) with us.
	On publicity, the James review ascertained that a large amount of spending on advertising was wasteful. Having examined it in detail, we are convinced of that. However, there might be a practical purpose in using targeted Government money to advertise something specific. We are in no way arguing for an enlargement of the advertising budget—quite the opposite. We want to spend the money far more effectively, and one way of doing that would be to advertise the list that we advocate in new clause 1. That might not please the advertising department of The Guardian, but it might help a large number of young people who are deciding on their career futures. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) suggests from a sedentary position that we should put the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), in charge, but the right hon. Gentleman may have other things on his mind at present.
	We propose publicising a specific list to assist people who might be in a position to take advantage of those courses, and those who advertise their ability to advise them on whether they could take advantage of the courses. We made that specific suggestion in Committee and gave the Government an opportunity to return to it on Report. Unfortunately, they have not listened to the point that we were trying to make, so we shall test the will of the House on the matter.

Andrew Tyrie: We have managed to discuss this Bill, as we did the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill, with a reasonable amount of civility, and to avoid the brickbats that are often associated with the passing of legislation in this place. I would like to thank the Paymaster General for listening, on the whole, to the points that we made and for responding to many, if not all of them. In some cases, we still feel that we have not had an answer, as I have made clear. She has certainly tried, however, and she has done more than merely go through the ritual process that she could have fallen back on in this modern age of programmed legislation.
	The Bill makes a number of simple changes to the eligibility rules for unwaged trainees and people aged 19. We have made it clear that we do not oppose those measures. However, we must bear in mind the fact that although this is a simple Bill, it forms part of a number of other proposals which, together, make it much more complicated. Whether the Bill turns out to be worth while will depend very much on the follow-up in the Budget and on the longer-term simplification proposals that have been set out—albeit only in very sketchy form, which worries me, as the Paymaster General knows—in "Supporting young people to achieve", the consultation document published a while ago.
	In Committee, the Government accepted that the current system was horrendously complex—I will not list all the major changes that have taken place since 1997—and that it needed radical simplification. They also accepted that there was something curious about giving child benefit to adults—that is, to people who in every other respect are legally entitled to do all the things that adults can do in society, except one. I realised as I was writing my notes that they would not be eligible to be Members of Parliament. For that, they would have to wait until they were 21.
	My second point is that even this simple measure will not come cheap. In Committee, we tried to find out whether it would provide value for money, and we were unable to get enough information to do so. I will not rehearse all the arguments that we had about the regulatory impact assessments, of which there have been two. Both of those rather curious documents were wholly inadequate, and neither amounted to very much at all.
	We do have estimates of the cost of extending child benefit to unwaged trainees. That has been given as £105 million. We also have an estimate of the cost of extending it to students of 19. That cost is given as £65 million. However, when we look closer, we discover that those numbers do not mean very much, because the Government have made no estimate of the behavioural effects that the measures might have. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made that point earlier, as did the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and me, at length, on Second Reading. With this type of support, it is the behavioural effects that we are looking for. The Government are using public money calculatedly and deliberately—and probably rightly—to change behaviour. It was therefore not unreasonable of the Opposition to ask them for their estimates of what those changes in behaviour would be.
	I agree that it is not easy for the Government. I sympathise with the Economic Secretary's comments on Second Reading:
	"we all share the problem that there is a sparsity of information available about unwaged trainees—the group of people we are most concerned with in this context."—[Official Report, 12 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 364.]
	All the same, bearing in mind the fact that this is the central issue, I was surprised that Ministers have not been prepared, since we first raised the point, even to have a stab at making an estimate based on some simple assumptions. I think that we will return to this issue after the Budget—and in a few months' time, when we are running policy—and it is worth spelling out in a bit more detail the questions that ought to have been answered. They could even have been answered through sampling, for example, which would have given us some information.
	First, what is the Government's overall estimate of the effect of extending child benefit to unwaged trainees—we now know that it is only those who have become eligible, because they are already on Government supported schemes—and on the overall number of unwaged trainees? We do not know the answer. There will be an Exchequer cost in terms of child benefit for young people who are encouraged to take up this form of training. Set against that, the Exchequer may save some money—a point made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and me on Second Reading. That will come to the extent that people are drawn into unwaged training from formal education. We are therefore looking for a net number, and we have not had it.

Andrew Tyrie: That is an extremely thoughtful intervention from a senior former Cabinet Minister. If he cares to look at the amendment paper, he will see that I tabled an amendment with that specific purpose in mind—perhaps he already knows that. Unfortunately—I am not sure how far I can stray down this path—it was not called for debate this afternoon. But it goes to the heart of the matter: when such measures are introduced we need to be clear how we will assess whether the money is being spent usefully. If we have that clear in our minds, we can work out later what yardsticks we will watch to find out whether adjustment is needed. We have not had that from the Government.
	I am very surprised and disappointed that we have not had such estimates. Secondly, how many people will be encouraged by the extension of child benefit for 19-year-olds to stay in full time non-advanced education? As far as I can tell, the behavioural effects will only work one way: there will be costs and no savings for the Exchequer—but I may be wrong, and I may have missed something. Again, I would have liked an estimate, and I have not had it.
	The Government could have provided that through sampling, as I have mentioned, or some kind of survey. We all understand that we will not get an exact figure—I hope that we would be intelligent enough not to hold the Government to such a figure if it turned out to be something else. But we should have some indication that the Government have been thinking about the issue and trying to find the right yardstick by which to measure it. After all, we are talking about nearly £200 million in expenditure, and it may be much more if the behavioural effects are considerable. We need to know what the deadweight cost is, but we do not know.
	At the heart of all this is a very important group of people. The Government claim to have helped them through the new deal and other measures, but they have not really helped them as much as they say—although we heard the customary noisy bluff and bluster from the Chancellor during Treasury Question Time today.
	Surely the group about whom we should be most worried consists of those who are not in employment, education or training. The latest figures show that far from diminishing, over the past seven years that group has grown larger. More than one million young people are now economically inactive and not in education. That is worrying, and it should be close to the heart of the Bill. Through various measures, the Government's support for this overall area runs into billions, but the policy does not seem to be delivering what we should expect of it.
	I am by no means alone in being worried about the absence of proper cost estimates. I have taken soundings from a large number of people and groups, including the Prince's Trust, Cornwall and Devon Connexions, the Foyer Federation, Barnardo's and the Association of Colleges. Many of them allude to this issue in one way or another. They do not oppose the Government's intentions; they do not even oppose the principle behind the Government's approach. That is territory that we share. What worries them is that the Bill may not have the intended effects. The chief executive of the Association of Colleges says:
	"the limited information on the costs of the reforms during the consultation period and on the publication of the Bill make it difficult to assess the impact . . . It is surprising that the same government that spent 3 years testing EMAs"
	—education maintenance allowances—
	"in more than 50 local authority areas is introducing a reform",
	also costing a lot of money, without testing it, and with only one year's implementation.
	That is very gently worded. The chief executive makes a number of other serious points about the risk of fraud and the need for good advice for young people, and the danger that the Bill could make obtaining such advice more difficult.
	I have raised all those points not because I want to oppose the Bill, but because I want to encourage the Government to think more clearly about the questions that they are asking civil servants in order to justify it here. I am sorry we have not been told enough to be able to make an informed judgment on whether the money involved will be used effectively. There is much in the Bill that gives us pause for thought, and much that may cause concern among those on the ground. There is a lack of clarity about the Government's destination. A page in one of their consultation documents refers to "the long-term vision", and provides about 100 words on the subject and a rather curious diagram. That does not constitute a long-term vision worthy of the name, and again there is a lack of clarity about the Bill's likely effects.
	Let me end with a point which, although highly controversial, needs to be made time and again. How on earth can a Treasury Minister be presenting a spending measure? It is extraordinary that the Treasury should be both gamekeeper and poacher, responsible for controlling public spending and at the same time arrogating to itself the power to write very large cheques.
	It does not surprise me at all that the No. 10 policy unit, and, we are told, the Prime Minister and John Birt, are working together vigorously to create an effective public expenditure control system for implementation in the event of Labour winning the election and the present Chancellor being moved to another job. Perhaps part of the reason for our inability to obtain clear answers to the questions I have asked this afternoon is the fact that we have a Department that is not suited to such tasks. An Inland Revenue Department is trying to run part of the benefits system. That inevitably leads to the question whether the right people are doing the right things in the Government. All sorts of problems concerning not only the implementation of policy, but whether policy is being devised intelligently and sensibly, will occur down the line.

PYSER SGI LTD. (EXPORT LICENCE)

John Stanley: The company Pyser SGI Ltd., which is in my constituency, is a truly remarkable success story. Although it employs fewer than 100 people in Edenbridge and Tonbridge, it is not only the last remaining UK manufacturer of night vision equipment for police forces, but a world beater. It sold its night vision monocular not only to UK police forces but to forces around the world, including, most conspicuously, the Athens police force for their protection of last year's Olympic games. That was a very significant export achievement for a small British company.
	Not surprisingly, and commendably, Pyser SGI, following its sales success during the Athens Olympics, wisely decided to see whether it could make its way into the market in China, in advance of the Beijing Olympics in 2008. In order to do so, the company decided to exhibit its night vision equipment in the China police exhibition that was held in Beijing in June last year. For that purpose, it needed an export licence; it applied to the Department of Trade and Industry and received one.
	At the exhibition in Beijing last year, the company received a number of orders, including one from the Shanghai police, who wanted to trial the night vision equipment with a view to placing a much larger follow-on order. That trial and order also required an export licence from the DTI for exactly the same piece of equipment that had been exhibited in the Beijing police exhibition in June last year. The company applied for an export licence, but was astounded to find that it was refused.
	The grounds for the refusal were that the night vision monocular fell within the EU arms embargo on China and that it might—I stress the word "might"—be used for internal repression. I shall come on later to whether the grounds for refusal were indeed valid. For the moment, I want to make two important, wider points that relate to the particular case.
	First, the company was meted out pretty poor treatment by the DTI when it granted export licences for equipment to be shown at an exhibition, without at the same time disclosing to the company that, if orders were obtained from buyers in the country where the exhibition was held, there was no possibility of a subsequent export licence being granted. That puts a British company in a false trading position. Pyser-SGI clearly feels—I think reasonably—that it was led up the garden path by the DTI. It expended a substantial sum by exhibiting at the Beijing police exhibition last year and now that it has secured orders in China for the very equipment that it exhibited, it has found that the export licence has been refused. At no previous point was that possibility disclosed by the DTI.

Nigel Griffiths: This particular company was not mislead. In common with many other companies, it is perfectly well aware that the export of products in their safe hands for demonstration purposes and their return to Britain does not guarantee that those products can be released subsequently elsewhere. That has been made perfectly clear to the industry. In my time as Minister, I have received no representations from the Defence Manufacturers Association about this particular issue, so there has been no doubt about the policy.

John Stanley: I am well aware of those points. I wholly accept that the DTI protects itself by saying that, just because it provides a licence for an exhibition, it does not mean that a further export licence will automatically follow. However, my point—I hope that the Minister will, on reflection, consider it—is that when the particular piece of equipment exhibited is equipment that his officials know perfectly well is unlikely to receive an export licence if orders are obtained, the Department has some responsibility at least to issue a warning of that likelihood to the company concerned. I hope that the Minister will reflect further on that important point.
	Secondly, I hope that the EU will not enter into arms embargoes that are defined as seriously inadequately as is the present embargo on China. I appreciate entirely that the present Government did not enter into that embargo. The previous Conservative Government did, along with EU member states, in the immediate aftermath of Tiananmen square. The embargo was declared at the Madrid European Council meeting of June 1989, and its wording is as follows:
	"In present circumstances, the European Council thinks it necessary to adopt the following measures".
	Six measures are listed, of which the relevant one states:
	"Interruption by the member states of the Community of military cooperation and an embargo on trade in arms with China".
	That is all that the embargo says. It contains no definition of what constitute "arms". That interpretation was left entirely up to individual member states. Not surprisingly, that created a very unsatisfactory—I would call it extremely unfair—situation in the EU.
	Individual EU Governments apply wholly different interpretations of what constitute arms in terms of the EU's arms embargo on China. At one end of the scale, the French Government—predictably—interpret the embargo in a way that is extremely generous to French arms exporting companies. At the other end of the scale, the British Government interpret the embargo in a way that is extremely restrictive for our arms exporting companies. The result, of course, is that British firms lose out. As a general point, I hope that, in the future, the EU will not declare an arms embargo in terms that are so deeply unsatisfactory and highly generalised, and which are open to widely varying national interpretations.
	I turn now to the particular case of the Pyser SGI monocular equipment, export approval for which was refused on the grounds that it might be used for internal repression. I want to make clear where I stand on human rights and China. I regard that country as a highly repressive state, and a serious violator of human rights. It still persecutes people who offer political criticism or any form or political opposition, and those who are fighting to establish free trade unions there. It also persecutes people who have non-political beliefs, such as members of the Falun Gong.
	Both in this and the previous Parliament, I have strongly criticised this Government's policy, which I consider to be far too soft, in respect of China's human rights record. That remains my position, but in this case we are dealing not with that general issue but with the very specific question of whether it is sensible and reasonable to think that the Pyser SGI night vision monocular equipment might be used by the Shanghai police as a major instrument of internal repression. I shall turn my attention to that in the next section of my speech.
	To provide some perspective on the refusal decision, if we use some sadistic imagination, it is not, I am afraid, impossible to think of a huge number of items manufactured in the UK that could conceivably be used as instruments of internal repression. I could go round my constituency—I am sure the Minister could do the same in his constituency—and visit Homebase, B&Q and builders' merchants in Tonbridge to buy nails, screws, hacksaws, power drills, chains and other goods that, in the wrong hands, could be used for internal repression. Such items are not covered by any form of export licensing procedure. Turning to the night vision monocular itself, I have brought one with me, and if the Minister is interested, I will give him a brief demonstration after our debate. He can see that it is an inoffensive piece of optical equipment. There are four key questions that the Government should ask before making a final decision about whether to grant an export licence to Pyser SGI so that it can export it to China.
	First, is the piece of equipment meant for military use, and is it constructed to a military specification? The answer is no, it is not a military piece of equipment, and is not on the common military list of the European Union, which lists all the equipment covered by the European code of conduct on arms exports. The monocular is deemed to be of dual use, which is why it is caught up in the export licensing system. I stress, however, that it is not a military list item.
	Secondly, the Government should ask whether the end user certificate provided by the Shanghai police on the purposes for which the night vision monocular is to be used is satisfactory. I have brought with me a copy of the end user certificate, signed by the chief inspector of the Shanghai police and the chief of the equipment department. The certificate asks:
	"Please set out the specific purposes for which the goods are to be used".
	The chief inspector replied:
	"The goods are used in criminal investigation department of Shanghai public security bureau. They are in charge of drug enforcement and anti-terrorist operation. They are member of Interpol. They provide security support for Shanghai World Expo 2010."
	We in Britain, including, I am sure, the British Government, are as much in favour of drug enforcement, for which the equipment is to be used, as the Shanghai police. We in Britain conduct our own anti-terrorist operations, and have taken the most far-reaching powers for centuries to deal with terrorists, including imprisonment without trial and now, under the Government's proposals, a new system of house arrest.
	The police of this country, like the Shanghai police, are members of Interpol. We in this country, again like the Shanghai police, are very much in favour of there being proper security at Shanghai World Expo in 2010. I put it to the Minister that the purposes for which the equipment is to be used seem fully in line with Government policy.
	My third question is: should the licence be refused simply because the piece of equipment is going to a Chinese police force? If the British Government's position was that Chinese police forces, wherever located in China, were, in human rights terms, wholly unacceptable organisations—if they were some sort of latter-day Gestapo—it would be perfectly reasonable to refuse them an export licence for any equipment. However, that is not the British Government's position. Indeed, their position is quite the reverse.
	I have been advised by Pyser SGI that the Metropolitan police are engaged in training, in Britain, police officers from China in drug enforcement. That training obviously has the approval of the British Government, including Foreign Office approval. It is funded by British taxpayers, and as I have already made clear, drug enforcement is one of the very purposes for which Pyser SGI is seeking an export licence for equipment for the Shanghai police. It seems extraordinarily perverse that, here in the UK, the Metropolitan police are training Chinese police in drug enforcement while the British Government are refusing a British company an export licence for equipment that would assist the Shanghai police in China in dealing with drug enforcement. Even more ironic is the fact that the Metropolitan police certainly include in their training some form of night training for the Chinese police in dealing with drug traffickers, and that will involve the use of night vision equipment—possibly the very equipment for which the DTI is refusing Pyser SGI an export licence for the Shanghai police. There are no grounds to say that the export licence should be refused simply because the equipment is going to the Chinese police.
	My fourth and final question is the clincher. Is the UK, in refusing the export licence, following the same policy as other European Union member states on that item of equipment? If the British Government were following the same refusal policy as other EU member countries, I would have no difficulty in accepting that that was EU policy and that Britain should go along with it—but that is not the case. In fact, the position is the reverse. If the UK was following the same policy on the equipment as that of other EU member states, the British Government should have given Pyser SGI an export licence on the nod, because companies in other EU member states have no difficulty whatever in obtaining approval for export licences for such equipment from their respective Governments.
	I now want to come to the detail of that key point. Three EU member states manufacture such night vision equipment for police forces: Britain, the Netherlands and France. Let me turn, then, to what is the practice in the Netherlands and France. The Dutch company involved is called Delft Electronic Products, and the key piece of equipment is called the image intensifier, which is fitted in the middle of the night vision monocular and is the key engine that drives the equipment. Delft Electronic Products has had no problem at all in getting export licences from the Dutch Government to export that item to China. Indeed, the Dutch company has gone even further than making simple, direct exports to China: it has entered into the joint licensed production of the image intensifier with a Chinese company—North Night Vision Technology Co. Ltd. in Beijing. That company is now manufacturing under licence from the Dutch the image intensifiers for which the British Government are refusing to grant an export licence to Pyser SGI.
	The situation is even more extraordinary in France, where Pyser SGI has two competitor companies, the first of which is called Photonis. Like Delft Electronic Products in the Netherlands, Photonis had no difficulty in getting export licences for its image intensifiers from the French Government. Even more extraordinary is the position of the second French company, Thales Angenieux. Again, with the approval of the French Government, that company has entered into another licensed production agreement with North Night Vision Technology Co. Ltd. in Beijing that involves an even more sophisticated piece of equipment—a night vision goggle, called LUCIE—than that for which Pyser SGI has been seeking export licence approval from the DTI.
	Most significantly, that French item, which is now under joint production with the Chinese in Beijing, is specifically stated to be for not only civilian but military use. Indeed, I have with me a copy of the sales particulars issued by North Night Vision Technology Co. Ltd.—they are partly in Chinese, but happily for me, partly in English as well—and the relevant couple of sentences read:
	"This new concept of multi-purposes night vision goggles LUCIE-NVT has been developed by THALES ANGENIEUX, assembled and exclusively sales in China by North Night Vision Technology Co. Ltd (NVT) . . . LUCIE-NVT offers, at the lowest price, 3 magnifications (1x, 4x and 6x) and is fully in accordance with military & civilian specifications."
	I stress to the Minister that our EU partners are following a totally different interpretation of the EU arms embargo on China and are selling competitive products with the full approval of their respective Governments.
	May I say to the Minister that although I am sure that he has on his knee a nice speech that has been dutifully drafted by his officials to justify the refusal decision that has been taken, I hope, having listened to my remarks, that he will on reflection put his prepared speech on hold, consider the points that I have made and perhaps discuss the matter with his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
	The facts are these. First, if the decision stands, the UK's only manufacturer of night vision monoculars for police forces will be put out of business in the major export market of China, and perhaps other markets as well. Secondly, I must put it to the Minister that it will make not one jot or tittle of difference to internal repression in China if the Pyser SGI monocular is sold, because if it is not sold by Pyser SGI, the Shanghai police will have no difficultly whatever buying it elsewhere. The third inescapable commercial reality is that if the British Government continue their present policy, Pyser SGI's Dutch and French competitors will simply be laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of a British company.
	This export licence decision is political correctness gone absolutely mad. It defies common sense and practicality on the ground, and it is directly contrary to British economic and employment interests. I am in no doubt that the refusal decision should be reversed, and I trust that the Minister will consider the case that I have made for that reversal and achieve just that.

Nigel Griffiths: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) on securing the debate on my refusal to grant a licence for Pyser SGI to export a night vision monocular and a night intensification module to China. I have a reputation for putting prepared speeches on hold, so let me thank him for giving me the opportunity to explain to the House the steps that I have taken to ensure that we have one of the most robust export licence regimes anywhere in the world.
	Our export licensing commitments are clear. We assess each export licence application on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU export licensing criteria and our own national arms export licensing criteria. We take fully into consideration the circumstances prevailing at the time. In addition, we reserve the right to impose our own stricter criteria in line with Government policy. If it is judged that an export is inconsistent with any of the criteria, the application is refused.
	We take the criteria very seriously. The case was refused under criterion 1, which covers international embargos and, on appeal, also under criterion 2, which refers to the possibility of internal repression. There is an EU embargo on arms to China, which we in the UK interpret as including the export of any goods that might be used for internal repression.
	The manufacturer made the following statement in its letter of 13 September:
	"we  . . . are wholly and totally unable to fathom how it might be in any way conceivable, practical or technically possible to make use of either of these items of equipment for 'internal repression' purposes".
	Let me explain why that is, in fact, possible. The night vision monocular can be strapped to a helmet to free hands for other tasks, and the night intensification module can be fitted to a camera to provide night vision capabilities. Of course, as the right hon. Member said, the items can be used legitimately, but they can also be used to enhance significantly the capabilities of internal security forces to conduct repressive night raids on civilians. It is frankly disingenuous for anyone in the business to claim otherwise.
	I am pleased that the world-class reputation of our police services ensures that they are training other police forces and achieving improvements in other countries. However, providing night vision equipment along with that is not the same as providing shirts, uniforms and boots. Let me be clear: although the case was refused initially only under criterion 1, had the embargo not been in place the clear risk that the goods would be used for internal repression would have led me to refuse the export under criterion 2 of the consolidated criteria, which also relates to internal repression.
	I shall set out why the goods were refused an export licence, even though an export licence was given for the temporary export of a limited sample of the goods to accompany the exporter to an exhibition in China for demonstration purposes. The terms of a temporary export licence are strict: they usually require the goods to remain in the possession of the exporter at all times, and usually seek guarantees of their return to the UK For those reasons, temporary licences do not raise the same issues as permanent ones—and exporters know that. We make it clear at all stages to all exporters, including the right hon. Member's constituents, that the granting of an export licence so that they can demonstrate their goods never guarantees that a permanent export licence will be granted. The exhibition in question was open to non-Chinese customers, so there was no reason to deny a licence to exhibit.
	Last year, the DTI's export control organisation held 14 regional workshops and four seminars to raise exporters' awareness of our controls. With permanent exports, as the goods will remain in the destination country unsupervised, the end use and end user of the goods must be carefully considered, together with the nature and capability of the goods and other relevant factors. Our foremost commitment is to ensure that exports are managed responsibly and in line with the UK's national and international commitments. I know that the right hon. Member shares that commitment and does not wish to advocate that trade interests should override matters of human rights and proliferation. The Government's serious concerns about the human rights situation in China have been made clear. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary briefed Parliament's Quadripartite Committee on 12 January, he stated that although the human rights situation in China has certainly eased, we are in no way satisfied that it is now fully acceptable.
	To assist exporters in assessing whether they should devote resources to securing overseas contracts, the Government openly provide as much information as possible to help them to undertake risk assessment on where to target their resources. The FCO website contains extensive detail on current policy restrictions and country-specific concerns, including the fact that the goods in question are contained on the EU list of dual-use equipment, which might be used for internal repression. The right hon. Member's constituents can have been in no doubt about the matter. I have ensured that the export control organisation's website now contains breakdowns of refusal rates and processing times by destination.
	The right hon. Member has raised the case directly with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Foreign Secretary. He asks the valid question whether our regime is more strict than that of other countries. Let me tell the House that every EU member state is committed to considering export licence applications against the binding EU code of conduct on arms exports or against any EU or UN embargoes. To ensure that no country grants a licence without realising that such a licence might have been refused by another member state, we have an EU-wide denial notification system, which ensures that refusal in one state is noted in every state. If the right hon. Member has further evidence about specific identical equipment having been supplied to the end user in China—I understand that he might have more details—that can be investigated.

John Stanley: The evidence from which I quoted has already been supplied to the Minister's Department and was in the appeal documentation submitted to his Department by Pyser SGI.